Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 6:12 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> guoren@xxxxxxxxxx writes: >> >> > From: Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Add the HAVE_SOFTIRQ_ON_OWN_STACK feature for the IRQ_STACKS config. The >> > irq and softirq use the same independent irq_stack of percpu by time >> > division multiplexing. >> > >> > Tested-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > arch/riscv/Kconfig | 7 ++++--- >> > arch/riscv/kernel/irq.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig >> > index 0a9d4bdc0338..bd4c4ae4cdc9 100644 >> > --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig >> > +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig >> > @@ -447,12 +447,13 @@ config FPU >> > If you don't know what to do here, say Y. >> > >> > config IRQ_STACKS >> > - bool "Independent irq stacks" if EXPERT >> > + bool "Independent irq & softirq stacks" if EXPERT >> > default y >> > select HAVE_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK >> > + select HAVE_SOFTIRQ_ON_OWN_STACK >> >> HAVE_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK is used by softirq.c Shouldn't that be >> selected introduced in this patch, instead of the previous one? > This patch depends on the previous one. And the previous one could > work separately. Let me try to be more clear: IRQ_STACKS should be introduced in the previous patch, which adds per-cpu stacks to hardirq. This patch adds per-cpu stacks for softirq, and the softirq related selects: select HAVE_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK select HAVE_SOFTIRQ_ON_OWN_STACK Hence, the "HAVE_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK" select should be part of *this* patch, not the previous. Or am I missing something? Björn
